Last week I set a horde of angry Trump supporters on my tail. I was accused of being some nutty Democrat, left-wing stooge. That’s a first, so thanks for that, box checked, and a lesson in how not to write a sentence. I was enumerating positions held by both sides concerning Trump, his EOs, swamp draining, and the swarm of TROs that district court judges have been releasing.
My original, “since edited” opening simply stated (at least in my mind) one of the two positions in that debate, but many readers assumed that it was my opinion. People who clearly are not familiar with my work. I’m not sure what was more amusing. That they called me a crank lefty, or that I did not see why they would.
Here is the since-edited opening.
There are likely more than two sides to this particular debate, but we’ll stick to these few to keep things in focus. One side (held by the progs, Dems, libs, and Marxists) is that President Trump is out of hand with all the executive orders, and thank god for district court judges (god is almost always a small g with these folks – the Big G is for Government). Without those Temporary restraining orders (TROs), their world will end.
By “their,” we mean the blue ideological bubble that is only slightly thicker than the bone over the Cro-Magnon supraorbital ridges keeping their 60 cc brain from falling out onto the Tesla they just keyed. A problem encapsulated in this tweak of an old Peanuts cartoon we shared a few weeks back.
The original?
There are likely more than two sides to this particular debate, but we’ll stick to these few to keep things in focus. The First is that President Trump is out of hand with all the executive orders, and thank god for district court judges (god is almost always a small g with these folks – the Big G is for Government). Without those Temporary restraining orders (TROs), our world will end.
By “our,” They mean the blue ideological bubble that is only slightly thicker than the bone over the Cro-Magnon supraorbital ridges keeping their 60 cc brain from falling out onto the Tesla they just keyed. A problem encapsulated in this tweak of an old Peanuts cartoon we shared a few weeks back.
If you keep reading, my position seems clear enough (to me), but if you were adequately put off already or stopped there, you’d probably be right to think I might be one of them. I am not, but this has happened more than once this past week.
One of the editors at Whatfinger, the right-sided aggregator that shares some of our content, posted “If King Charles Offers Trump Membership In Commonwealth, US Should Strongly Consider Joining” with remarks to the effect that they’d never allow themselves to be ruled by a king. Me neither, so why the clarification? Just in case, I suppose, but they could have NOT shared it – and if you read it, it explains that members aren’t selling their sovereignty.
The article was shared third-party content (not mine), so I didn’t change the headline, but if you couldn’t get past that lead, you’d think we were embracing the latest right-wing conspiracy. That Trump wants to make America beholden to England by joining ‘The Commonwealth.’ As if.
First, it is important to know what the Commonwealth is not. It is no longer a British organization by power or practice and has not been for decades.
The Commonwealth has evolved mightily through the years and now is a group of 56 independent nations dedicated to political freedom, human rights, free trade especially among members and using English as the language of the institution.
Being a member of the Commonwealth does not declare American allegiance, in any way, to the Crown of the United Kingdom (India, a Commonwealth member, has certainly said the same thing). King Charles is the titular Head of the Commonwealth, and while the British monarch is acknowledged in this role by the decision of the 2018 Commonwealth meeting, he holds no formal power over it.
The article laid out precisely what the conspiracy mill was NOT spinning up, which is why I thought it necessary for expanding knowledge and debate—a sort of, hey, did you see this side of that issue? That was not how our commenters took it. In short, it was perceived as another globalist trap we’d end up financing, so hell no.
They suggested that we could do the same things without the Commonwealth that we could with it—a fair argument. That many or most nations in that group do not defend our brand of free speech is also entirely legitimate (for a group that claims to protect it). And suggesting it could devolve into another UN that we would have to finance has a basis in historical fact.
So, there were lots of hard nos, which is fine, and perhaps the idea was tossed out there to massage some other matter. The Signal Chat “leak” did more to communicate and possibly advance US foreign policy interests than months of above-board conversation. I just wanted to make sure the only narrative wasn’t the one that said we’d be beholden to King Charles. That was utter crap and people need to know that, even if they object to the association on any grounds.
And sometimes, that riles folks up a bit, but then – that’s what we do.
